There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. —Soren Kierkegaard. "…truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it. That is why truth does not yield to opinion, fashion, numbers, office, or sincerity–it is simply true and that is the end of it" – Os Guinness, Time for Truth, pg.39. “He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” – Blaise Pascal. "There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily" – George Washington letter to Edmund Randolph — 1795. We live in a “post-truth” world. According to the dictionary, “post-truth” means, “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Simply put, we now live in a culture that seems to value experience and emotion more than truth. Truth will never go away no matter how hard one might wish. Going beyond the MSM idealogical opinion/bias and their low information tabloid reality show news with a distractional superficial focus on entertainment, sensationalism, emotionalism and activist reporting – this blogs goal is to, in some small way, put a plug in the broken dam of truth and save as many as possible from the consequences—temporal and eternal. "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." – George Orwell “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Soren Kierkegaard
Lord, work in me that fear of you, which is the beginning of wisdom, Psalm 111:10(ESV) which is instruction in wisdom, Proverbs 15:33(ESV) and which is a fountain of life, that one may turn away from the snares of death. Proverbs 14:27(ESV)
O put the fear of you in my heart, that I may not turn from you. Jeremiah 32:40(ESV) Let me be devoted to your fear; Psalm 119:38(KJV) and let me continue in the fear of the LORD everyday and all the day. Proverbs 23:17(ESV)
We must pray that the love of God and Christ may be rooted in us and, in order to that end, that the love of the world may be rooted out of us.
Give me grace, I beg you, to love you, the Lord my God, with all my heart and soul and mind and strength, Mark 12:30(ESV) which is the great and first commandment; Matthew 22:37-38(ESV) to hold fast to you in love; Psalm 91:14(ESV) and to delight myself always in you; and therein I shall have the desires of my heart. Psalm 37:4(ESV)
Circumcise my heart to love you, the LORD my God, with all my heart and with all my soul, that I may live. Deuteronomy 30:6(ESV)
O that God’s love may be poured into my heart through the Holy Spirit. Romans 5:5(ESV)
O that Jesus Christ may be very precious to me, as he is to all who believe; 1 Peter 2:7(KJV) that he may be in my account distinguished among ten thousand, Song of Solomon 5:10(ESV) and altogether desirable; and that he may be my beloved and my friend: Song of Solomon 5:16(ESV) That though I have not seen him, yet I may love him; and though I do not now see him, yet I may believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory. 1 Peter 1:8(ESV)
Let the love of Christ to me control me to live, not to myself, but to him who for my sake died and was raised. 2 Corinthians 5:14-15(ESV)
And, Lord, grant that I may not love the world or the things in the world, because if anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him; 1 John 2:15(ESV) that I may set my mind on things above, and not on things that are on earth. Colossians 3:2(ESV)
Nehemiah 11:1-12:26 In this week’s study, we look at the importance of what it means to be a Christian in our neighborhoods, particularly in the great urban centers of the world.
Theme
A Biblical Vision
3. We must be a biblical community. This leads to the third necessary ingredient for an effective Christian presence in the city. Not only must we be in the city and be a community, we must also be Bible-directed. In other words, we must be the kind of community God wants us to be. What kind of a community is that? This is a big subject, of course, but a short statement of it is in Micah: “What does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8).
That verse lists three requirements. First, to act justly. This means justice for all, not just for Christians or for our pet projects. It means justice for the Jew and the Catholic, the poor and the rich, the utterly destitute, for everybody. Justice is impartial. It means acting justly, not just talking about justice. It means acting justly ourselves and not just expecting other people to do it.
Second, to love mercy. This does not mean that we should merely act in a compassionate way from time to time, still less only to those who are like us or not much worse off than us. It means trying to show mercy always and in all possible ways. The activities of city Christians can be just and merciful at the same time.
Third, to walk humbly with God. We need to hear this especially, since often Christians are anything but humble. Instead of working with others in a genuinely humble manner, we act as if we already have all the answers (which we do not) and thus rightly cause the secular world to scorn us.
4. We need a vision. The final element needed for an effective Christian presence in the city is a vision for the kind of society we hope to see established. Up to this point we have failed in providing our secular culture with this vision. Colonel V. Doner, in a recent book entitled The Samaritan Strategy: A New Agenda for Christian Activism, claims that this was the specific failure of the Christian Right in the 1980s. It was able to marshal effective support for a few select causes, such as the fight against abortion or pornography. But it had no vision for the kind of society we should want to see established. So the Christian Right was regarded as being a crusade only for Christian interests as well as a threat to those who had even slightly different goals. Writes Doner,
To many, it appeared that all the Christian Right had to offer was a negative/reactionary collage of ‘don’ts,’ rather than a comprehensive and constructive agenda of ‘do’s.’ Worse yet, most Christians could not understand how all the issues connected to each other…. Without a clear Christian worldview, Christians were unable to act in unison behind a comprehensive and clearly understood agenda.1
That carefully-thought-out and well-articulated Christian worldview has not yet emerged. Developing such a vision should be a primary objective for our time.
And while we are doing that we should not think that the world is utterly opposed to us. The society about is far less hostile than we sometimes think. Not long ago the Gallup Poll organization conducted a survey of residents of cities with populations that exceed 50,000, asking what organizations they perceived as trying hardest to improve city life. There were all kinds of suggestions: the mayor, city council, local newspapers, local businesses, neighborhood groups, the chamber of commerce, banks, service clubs, builders, almost anything you can think of. Do you know what group led the list? The local churches! They gained 48 percent of the vote, ahead even of the mayor who came second. And he only had 39 percent.
Let’s not be negative. The world is waiting to see what true Christians can do. I think even God is waiting. Ray Bakke has written, “I think God wants to bless [the] cities, and he waits for a renewed church.”2
1Colonel V. Doner, The Samaritan Strategy: A New Agenda for Christian Activism (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), 37.
2Raymond J. Bakke, “The Battle for the Cities: What We Have Learned About Urban Evangelization Since Pattaya 1980,” World Evangelism, March 1986, 16.
Study Questions
Describe the three requirements Micah 6:8 provides to be a biblical community.
What elements constitute a Christian worldview? How do they connect together to form a unified idea of how the Bible provides the necessary vision for society?
Application
Reflection: In a world often characterized by such things as uncertainty, fear, violence, lawlessness, and the breakdown of morality and relational stability, there is perhaps more of an interest in transcendent ideas that we have noticed in a while. Are you prepared to provide answers firmly grounded in Scripture to struggling people open to listening to what you have to say? How can you as an individual, and your church as a community of believers, reach out to your needy neighbors and bear witness to the truth of the gospel—in both word and deed?
For Further Study: Download for free and listen to James Boice’s message, “A Christian World-View.” (Discount will be applied at checkout.)
Humans have always been haunted by the shadow of mortality. Psychologists have a name for this persistent awareness: “mortality salience.” It’s the knowledge that death is inevitable, and it shapes us in ways we often don’t recognize. “Death anxiety”—the fear of dying—and “death depression”—the sadness that comes with contemplating our end—are not rare conditions but almost universal responses to being human. Unlike other animals, we alone can imagine the future, anticipate our own deaths, and feel the weight of what’s coming. This unique awareness changes how we think, feel, and act.
We see this in our language. We skirt around the subject of death, using euphemisms and avoiding direct conversations. Some of us are afraid of the pain that might come with dying; others dread being separated from loved ones. For many, the greatest fear is the unknown—what, if anything, comes next. And for some, the terror lies in the idea that death is the permanent end of existence.
This fear isn’t just common—it may be the central driver behind much of human behavior. Terror Management Theory, a growing field of study, suggests that controlling death anxiety is society’s primary function, and that our actions are often motivated by the need to buffer ourselves against the reality of our mortality. Anthropologist Ernest Becker, in his seminal work The Denial of Death, argued that our deepest value systems—whether philosophical, political, cultural, or scientific—are built to help us deny the finite nature of our lives. We cling to these worldviews in hopes of achieving some form of symbolic immortality, even if real immortality eludes us.
Researchers have found that when we are reminded of our mortality, we become more entrenched in our beliefs. We defend our worldviews more fiercely and distance ourselves from those who disagree. Death anxiety doesn’t just affect our minds; it seeps into our relationships, our politics, and our culture. It can diminish our quality of life, lower our self-esteem, and deepen our grief when we lose someone we love. It can rob us of sleep, fuel depression, and trigger anxiety disorders, phobias, and even eating problems. Sometimes, it causes us to withdraw emotionally, making us less compassionate and more isolated.
Given all this, it’s no surprise that death anxiety is a powerful motivator. We all must find a way to cope with the “frightening recognition of our own mortality.” Some strategies work better than others. Many coping mechanisms—whether distraction, denial, or the pursuit of legacy—are like painkillers for a deeper problem. They might numb the fear, but they can’t remove the reality of death. Most offer only symbolic immortality, not the real thing.
Some, like the late astronomer Carl Sagan, accept the finality of death. Sagan wrote, “I would love to believe that when I die I will live again… But as much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking.” Sagan’s view is honest, but it’s not the norm. Surveys show that most people around the world believe in some form of afterlife, and more Americans believe in life after death than even believe in God. Even those who are skeptical of religion, like Kurt Cobain, often express hope that this life is just a “pitstop for the afterlife”.
Why does belief in an afterlife matter? Because it changes the way we experience death anxiety. Studies consistently show that people with religious or spiritual beliefs suffer less from death anxiety and its harmful effects. Religion offers a framework for understanding life and death, and the more committed someone is to these beliefs, the less likely they are to be haunted by existential despair. This isn’t just about believing in “something more”—the specifics matter.
Not all afterlife beliefs are created equal. Christians, for example, report less death anxiety than followers of other religions. One reason is the Christian concept of the “persisting self.” In Christianity, you are more than just a body; you have a soul that carries your identity, memories, and character into eternity. This dualistic view stands in contrast to other worldviews: Buddhism teaches that the self is an illusion, Hinduism sees the self as reincarnated but changed, and atheism views the self as entirely material and destined to disappear.
Christianity’s promise is unique: the soul persists, the body is resurrected, and the self is made whole again. For Christians, death is not the end but a new chapter. This hope of true immortality—rather than mere symbolism—explains why Christians, more than most, can face death with less fear and more peace.
In the end, our response to mortality shapes everything. Whether we seek comfort in legacy, philosophy, or faith, the longing for immortality is universal. But only a worldview that offers a truly persisting self can quiet the deepest fears that come with being human.
The following characteristics will help us define and recognize the nature of a cult.
Editor’s Note: Dr. Roger Barrier went to be with the Lord on February 16th, 2024. Dr. Barrier’s family is honoring his legacy by continuing the ministry of Ask Roger and preachitteachit.org for years to come as they share more than two thousand still-unpublished sermons and Ask Roger articles. All articles authored by Dr. Barrier that are published and republished are done posthumously.
“I know that after my departure, savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:29-30).
Paul is speaking to the early church—and to us—about cults. They will and have come. They existed then and now. If we’re not extremely careful, they can draw us away from the truth.
One quick note before we begin. The term “cult,” as expressed in the English language, can be used in both secular and religious settings. For example, “the singer’s cult of fans” or “the film has a cult following.”
Today, we will work with religious cults, defined by Dictionary.com as “great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers; a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.”
The following characteristics will help us define and recognize the nature of a cult.
First, the most dastardly, insidious mark of a cult is that it ignores or distorts the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
To one degree or another, all cults deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Their teachings and principles will eventually leave a person unsaved, without a relationship with Jesus Christ, and spending eternity in hell.
The Bible teaches that faith in Christ, plus nothing else, equals salvation. Ephesians 2:8-9 reads, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.”
The three most obvious cults today are Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Watchtower Society, and Mormons. All three put good works in the place of “nothing else,” suggesting the redeeming work of Jesus is not sufficient by itself. Faith plus anything else is heresy.
This characteristic of cults is so significant that Paul literally pronounces a curse as he shares his displeasure and outright anger at these false prophets who minimize, distort, or change the gospel:
“I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; … But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:6-9).
Please note that the word Paul used for “curse” is the strongest word for cursing in the Greek language. Technically, it dooms the one who is cursed to the darkest, deepest, most horrible fate imaginable.
Second, most cults are led by a dynamic, charismatic leader who eventually controls and manipulates his or her followers.
Jim Jones was a psychopathic, manipulative, controlling, and insidious leader. He founded the People’s Temple in Indiana during the 1950s. Jim began moving to different cities, gaining followers at each one. In the mid-1970s, he relocated all of his followers to Guyana on the northwest coast of South America.
Then in 1978, rumors began to circulate, alleging that human rights abuses were occurring in the People’s Temple. United States Congressman Leo Ryan went to investigate. Ryan and several defectors were murdered by gunfire while boarding a return flight home. Shortly thereafter Jones led all of his 918 followers—including 304 children—to commit suicide by drinking Kool-Aid spiked with cyanide.
Jones was a brash overlord who enslaved his followers… ultimately leading to their deaths.
In contrast, true Christian leaders are humble. Jesus described himself as “meek and lowly in heart” (Matthew 11:29).
Paul mentored Timothy as a pastor and church leader in two of his letters. In 1 Timothy 3:1-4, Paul described a godly leader:
“Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect.”
Third, surprisingly, most cult leaders grew up in a Christian environment.
Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church, grew up in a Presbyterian home. Jim Jones attended a Nazarene church; later he pastored a Disciples of Christ congregation before founding the People’s Temple. Moses David (David Berg), founder of the Children of God, is the son of evangelical parents and served as a minister in a Christian and Missionary Alliance church. Mary Baker Patterson Glover Eddy, founder of the Christian Scientists, and Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, were both raised in Christian homes and churches.
Obviously, there are many reasons why cult leaders turn from Christianity. I would guess that some imagined hearing a voice from God telling them that they were divinely inspired to begin something new. Some were deceived by demonic promptings. Others were arrogant con men and con women who knew just enough Bible to get everything confused. Many were arrogant, grandiose people whose pride led them to destruction.
Fourth, cult leaders tend to ignore, confuse, add to, and/or demean the Bible’s teachings.
It is easy to trap Christians when cultists speak Christian language. This is why churches need to teach the Bible early and definitively. This is why new Christians need mentors.
Occasionally, the media draws our attention to a leader who counts up biblical numbers and is convinced that he or she knows the date of Christ’s Second Coming.
I recall one such group in southern Arizona that I identified as a “Second Coming Cult.” This particular cult leader went to the Bible, added up some dates, and declared that he had figured out the exact time and day of our Lord’s return (never mind Matthew 24:36).
Cults like his spring up occasionally. He convinced his followers to sell all their possessions because they would no longer need them after Christ’s return.
Jesus didn’t return on his time. The cult dissipated quickly. Most had nothing to show for it except some clothes in a closet.
Like all cult leaders, this man demeaned the truth of the Scriptures. Jesus said that only God the Father knows the day and time of his return.
Fifth, cults use devious methods to trap, deceive, and control their followers.
In an article entitled “The Power Abusers,” Ronald Enroth demonstrates some of the tools used by cults to control their members:
Behavior Control: An individual’s associations, living arrangements, food, clothing, sleeping habits, finances, etc., are strictly controlled
Information Control: Cult leaders deliberately withhold or distort information, lie, propagandize, and limit access to other sources of information
Thought Control: Cult leaders use loaded words and language, discourage critical thinking, bar any speech critical of cult leaders or policies, and teach an “us vs. everyone else” doctrine
Emotional Control: Leaders manipulate their followers via fear (including the fear of losing salvation, and the fear of being shunned, etc.)
Personally, I know of one freshman college student who fell into a cult led by a man named Brother David. She had been to church all of her life but became entrapped by both his teachings and personal guidance.
She writes: “Brother David (not his real name) pastored a wildly demonstrative congregation, and people prophesied over me twice a week. I didn’t need to listen to God anymore; my fellow followers told me exactly what to do (and what not to do). I had this gnawing feeling growing deep inside that God was mad at me all of the time. I felt that I had disappointed Jesus if I were not fasting and reading the Bible constantly. I withdrew from friends and family, dismissing them as carnal and deceived.”
Fasting at his suggestion, she reached 89 pounds before her parents and boyfriend succeeded in wrenching her free. Unfortunately, she was kind enough to tell Brother David why she was leaving. He told her that she could go to hell.
Sixth, people join cults for a number of reasons.
Some look at the level of religious mediocrity that they see all around them and find cults more attractive, as they tend to be more demanding.
Others are looking for a new or deeper spiritual experience. They listen to an attractive personality and admire their reputation for superior godliness.
Still, others are attracted to authoritarian movements that offer black and white, clear-cut answers or systematic approaches to life’s problems.
Some crave a message that seems to support their own beliefs and desires.
Many lived through a church split and were hurt and disillusioned. They swore never to return. Then, they were exposed to a cult that seemed fresh and new. They were ripe for conversion.
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.”
One other group is especially vulnerable: young Christians who get confused about the truth.
“Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming” (Ephesians 4:14).
How to Avoid being Seduced by Cult Leaders and Teachings
1. Study Scripture in order to know true doctrine and biblical teaching.
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).
2. Don’t forget or ignore what you’ve already learned.
“Peter, knowing that his days were numbered, reminded his readers of those truths which they had already learned.” (2 Peter 1:12-13)
3. Develop a consistent and committed walk with Christ. Grow up!
“As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him.” (Colossians 2:6)
4. Consciously pray and practice the filling of the Holy Spirit.
“Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18).
5. Before leaving the house in the morning, put on the spiritual armor of Ephesians 6:10-18.
“Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes… the belt of truth… the breastplate of righteousness… the shoes out the gospel of peace… the shield of faith… the helmet of salvation… the sword of the Spirit… and pray in the spirit…”
“Submit to God; resist the devil; and he will flee from you.”
How to Help Deprogram Someone Out of a Cult
-We must recognize the power of prayer and our dependence on the Holy Spirit for healing.
-Since damage was done in a relational context, healing must also take place in a healthy, safe relationship.
-Use the Scriptures and take time to help the individual identify their cult’s particular biblical distortions in a safe setting.
-Avoid criticizing, confrontation and arguing.
-As often as possible, give them an infusion of truth about who God is and how He sees us.
-As they emerge to freedom, connect them with a healthy church.
Have you come across any of these telltale signs, or have more to add? Join the conversation at Crosswalk Forums HERE!
Best Resources for this article may be found at: PreachItTeachIt.org; Bible Gateway.com; Got Questions.com; Wikipedia.com; the helpful teaching of Robert L. (Bob) Deffinbaugh pastor/teacher and elder at Community Bible Chapel in Richardson, Texas; and Steve Dowdle, retired counselor from Casas Church, Tucson Arizona.
Dr. Roger Barrier retired as senior teaching pastor from Casas Church in Tucson, Arizona. In addition to being an author and sought-after conference speaker, Roger has mentored or taught thousands of pastors, missionaries, and Christian leaders worldwide. Casas Church, where Roger served throughout his thirty-five-year career, is a megachurch known for a well-integrated, multi-generational ministry. The value of including new generations is deeply ingrained throughout Casas to help the church move strongly right through the twenty-first century and beyond. Dr. Barrier holds degrees from Baylor University, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Golden Gate Seminary in Greek, religion, theology, and pastoral care. His popular book, Listening to the Voice of God, published by Bethany House, is in its second printing and is available in Thai and Portuguese.His latest work is, Got Guts? Get Godly! Pray the Prayer God Guarantees to Answer, from Xulon Press. Roger can be found blogging at Preach It, Teach It, the pastoral teaching site founded with his wife, Dr. Julie Barrier.
This Ask Roger article may feature insights from Roger’s wife, Dr. Julie Barrier, co-founder of Preach It, Teach It, worship minister, concert artist, and adjunct professor at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, or his daughter,Brie Barrier Wetherbee, a sought-after Bible teacher and conference speaker, author, analyst, and Christian theologian.
“The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” (3:35–36)
This last point explicitly states what the first four imply. Because of His love for the Son (cf. 5:20; 15:9; 17:23, 26; Matt. 3:17), the Father has given Him supreme authority over all things on earth and in heaven (Matt. 11:27; 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:27; Eph. 1:22; Phil. 2:9–11; Heb. 1:2; 1 Peter 3:22). That supremacy is a clear indicator of the Son’s deity. John’s affirmation of Jesus’ absolute authority demonstrated his humble attitude, even as his heralding ministry faded into the background. Having fulfilled his mission on this earth, John realized that his work would soon be finished. In fact, not long after this, he was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas, ruler of Galilee (Matt. 14:3–11). But before he faded from the scene, John the Baptist gave an invitation and a warning that form a fitting climax, not only to this chapter, but also to his entire ministry. Like Moses (Deut. 11:26–28; 30:15–20), Joshua (Josh. 24:15), Elijah (1 Kings 18:21), and Jesus (John 3:18) before him, he set forth the only two choices available to lost sinners: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” The blessed truth of salvation is that the one who believes in the Son has eternal life as a present possession, not merely as a future hope. Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life” (5:24; cf. 1:12; 3:15–16; 6:47; 1 John 5:10–13). But on the other hand, the one who does not obey the Son will not see life. The juxtaposition of belief and disobedience is a reminder that the New Testament portrays belief in the gospel as obedience to God, an essential element of saving faith (cf. Acts 6:7; Rom. 1:5; 15:18; 16:26; 2 Thess. 1:8; Heb. 5:9; 1 Peter 1:2; 4:17). The fearful reality is that the wrath of God (His settled, holy displeasure against sin) continually abides on disobedient sinners who refuse to believe in Jesus Christ. Just as eternal life is the present possession of believers, so also is condemnation the present condition of unbelievers. The idea here is not that God will one day condemn sinners for their disobedient unbelief; they are already in a state of condemnation (3:18; 2 Peter 2:9) from which only saving faith in Jesus Christ can deliver them. The ultimate consequence of refusing to believe will be to experience God’s wrath for eternity in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10–15). But it was to save helpless, doomed sinners from that terrifying fate that God sent His Son to be the Savior of the world (1:29; 3:17; 4:42; Matt. 1:21; Rom. 5:9; 1 Thess. 1:10; 1 John 4:14). In this way, John the Baptist clearly declared the sovereignty and supremacy of Jesus Christ, emphasizing that He alone is able to save sinful men from the consequences of their disobedience. And what John proclaimed with his lips, he exemplified with his life, actively promoting Jesus’ ministry even at the expense of his own. Thus, the weight of John’s witness can still be felt today—as a warning to unbelievers, that they must repent and follow Christ, and as an example to believers, that they should seek the Savior’s glory rather than their own.
MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (2006). John 1–11 (pp. 132–133). Moody Press.
The Revealer Has Come
John 3:31–36
“The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit. The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”
In a small but very excellent book written by A. W. Tozer, there is an illuminating paragraph that refers to the inferential character of the average man’s faith in God. This means that for most people God is the end result of a chain of reasoning rather than a reality. According to such people there may be much to suggest God’s existence. There is the beauty of nature, the immensity of space, the order of matter. “He must be,” they say. “Because these things are, he is.” Other people argue in the same way from the experience of a parent or friend. “God was real to my mother,” they say, “so he must be real. I believe in him because others believe in him.” Still others find their belief in God linked to their belief in such things as truth, goodness, beauty, or ethical ideals. Quite obviously, each of these chains of reasoning is unique. Still, as Tozer notes, those who hold them have one thing in common. “They do not know God in personal experience. The possibility of intimate acquaintance with Him has not entered their minds. While admitting His existence they do not think of Him as knowable in the sense that we know things or people.” Unfortunately, although this is primarily true of non-Christians, there is also a sense in which it is at least partially true of some believers. For although they believe in Christ and trust him in one sense, still for them God is unreal and they go through life attempting to love an ideal or be loyal to an abstract doctrine or principle. If you are at any point of this wide spectrum of those for whom God is unreal, then the verses to which we come now are for you especially. They are about Jesus Christ, and they speak of him as the great witness to God, the great revealer of him. They say, “The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit. The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (John 3:31–36).
The Perfect Witness
What is it that makes a person a good witness? We know something of the answer to this question because of our knowledge of the procedures in courts of law. The first thing that is required if a man is to be a good witness is that he must have firsthand information. He must have seen or heard that about which he is testifying. For this reason, no judge in the land will accept hearsay evidence. Second, a good witness must be willing to testify. He must be willing to speak up, to get involved. Third, the witness must be reliable. That is, his witness must be substantial and possess enough self-consistency to be believed. These three requirements make for a perfect witness. By this standard—and this is John’s point—Jesus Christ is the perfect witness concerning God. Thus, in verse 31 John stresses the fact that Jesus has firsthand information concerning God because of his origins. In verse 32 he points out that Jesus did bear witness to this knowledge. Finally, in verse 34 he shows that the witness is reliable “for God gives the Spirit without limit.”
Firsthand Information
The first point is that Jesus Christ possessed accurate knowledge of God the Father. This is linked to his supremacy over all other teachers and prophets. These may have possessed part of the truth, but even at the best their insights were secondary. They reported only what God had revealed to them. Jesus was God incarnate. His origins were heavenly. Consequently, he has revealed the truth perfectly out of the fullness of his knowledge. On this point William Barclay writes, “If we want information, we have to go to the person who possesses that information. If we want information about a family, we will only get it at firsthand from a member of that family. If we want information about a town, we will only get it at firsthand from someone who comes from that town. So, then, if we want information about God, we will get it only from the Son of God; and if we want information about heaven and heaven’s life, we will only get it from Him who comes from heaven. When Jesus speaks about God and about the heavenly things, says John, it is no carried story, no secondhand tale, no information from a secondary source. He tells us that which he himself has seen and heard. To put it very simply, because Jesus alone knows God, he alone can give us the facts about God, and these facts are the gospel.” In his Gospel, John has a special way of emphasizing the fact that Jesus alone possesses such knowledge. It is not present, or at least is not present in the same degree, in the other Gospels. John stresses the fact that Jesus is the perfect witness because he alone has been sent into the world by God. Here a few statistics will be helpful. In John’s Gospel the phrase “he (or ‘the Father’) who sent me” is found on the lips of Jesus twenty-three times. The Greek verb in that phrase (apostellein) occurs seventeen times in phrases that speak of God’s commissioning of the Son, and there are other phrases that speak from man’s perspective of the fact that Jesus Christ has “come.” Jesus is the One who “came down from heaven.” He “has come into the world.” He “came from the Father,” or God. In the final discourses, as the time of Jesus’ death draws near, the emphasis shifts quite naturally from the fact that Jesus came into the world to the fact that he is now to return to the Father. In John 16:28, the themes of the coming and the return are bound together. “I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.” These phrases have little or no reference to the identification of Jesus as the Messiah as similar phrases do in the other Gospels. Instead, they refer to Jesus’ ability both to impart heavenly gifts and to speak the words of God to men. Jesus is the perfect witness because he is able perfectly to reveal God. “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known” (John 1:18). Moreover, according to the Bible and to the Gospel of John particularly, the sending of Jesus Christ into the world involves much more than the sending of a prophet, as in Old Testament times, or the sending of the apostles into the world as evangelists in the New Testament era. These men were messengers. They were sent by God. But Jesus is not a messenger. He is the messenger. It is true that John the Baptist is also said to have been sent by God (1:6, 33; 3:28) and that the disciples later are sent in their turn into the world (17:18; 20:21). But neither the Baptist nor the disciples exert a claim to any independent revelation. They are only sent to bear witness to Jesus Christ. He alone speaks and acts out of the fullness of his knowledge of his Father. In John 9 there is a story that illustrates all that I have been saying. It is a story of how a blind man came to know God through Jesus. The man has no knowledge of God at the beginning of the story. His physical blindness is a symbol of his spiritual blindness. Jesus heals him. As he does so he says, “While I am in the world, I am the light of the world” (v. 5; cf. 8:12). Through this contact the man begins to understand something of who Jesus is, and he increases in spiritual sight until he eventually comes to argue pointedly for the truth of Christ’s heavenly origin. The high point of the story is reached in the contrast between the testimony of the man who had been born blind and the denial of Christ by the Jewish rulers. The Jews argue from the basis of their knowledge of the law and Moses. They say, “We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from” (v. 29 RSV). The man who had been born blind replies, “Why, this is a marvel! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes.… If this man were not from God, he could do nothing” (vv. 30, 33 RSV). The man who was blind had been led by the healing of his eyes to the spiritual perception that Jesus had come from God and therefore spoke and acted out of a true knowledge of God. Thus, while his understanding of Jesus began with the confession that he was merely a “man” (v. 11), it soon progressed to the fact that he was “a prophet” (v. 17) “of God” (v. 33) and then to a worship of him (v. 38). By contrast, the failure of the leaders to recognize the truth of Christ’s coming from God actually intensified their spiritual blindness and led to their rejection of Christ’s testimony entirely. Where do you stand in this picture? Are you one for whom God is only an inference? Or have you come to “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6)?
A Willing Witness
There is also, as I have indicated, a second requirement for a perfect witness. Not only must a witness have firsthand information about that which is to be testified; the witness must also be willing to testify. Was Jesus willing? Of course, he was. He got involved. Therefore, John writes, “He testifies to what he has seen and heard” (v. 32). It is interesting to me that John puts the verb “testify” in the present tense here, as indeed he does with all the other verbs that speak of Christ’s witness. We would tend to use the past tense, for we would reason that Jesus came, bore his testimony, and then returned to heaven. This is not what John does. For John, Jesus is still testifying. Well then, we ask, where do we hear his testimony? The answer is: in the Bible. Is the Bible something that is dead, irrelevant, or dated, then? Not for John! And not for any who have come to know Christ and to have experienced the living power of the Bible to speak on his behalf. The Bible is living. Christ is living. Moreover, it is through the Bible that he continues to speak and bear his witness to heavenly things in our days.
Reliable Testimony
Jesus also fulfilled the third requirement for the perfect witness. His witness was consistent. It was complete and therefore totally reliable. John indicates this when he writes, “For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit. The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands” (vv. 34–35). I must admit that because of the way this phrase is written in the Greek, several different interpretations of it are possible. It could mean three things. First, it could mean that Jesus Christ gives the Spirit to believers without measure. The verse has often been taken in that light, but this view is faulty. Certainly Jesus does not withhold the Spirit from his own. But whatever the case, none of us possesses the Spirit in the measure that he is possessed by Jesus; and it is far more true to say of ourselves, as is said elsewhere, that “to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it” (Eph. 4:7). The verse could also mean that the Spirit does not give by measure; that is, that the Spirit himself gives liberally. That is true in one sense, but it does not seem to fit the context of these verses and is at best only a barely possible reading of the Greek text. The third view, the one that is to be preferred, is that the Father has not withheld any measure of the Spirit from the Son. This is John’s way of saying that there is perfect communion and communication between the Son and the Father, with the result that the Father guarantees the truth and total reliability of Christ’s words. This is not true of any other religious teacher; in fact, no other teacher (except a madman) would claim it. In all the teaching of all the other religious teachers of this world, truth is always mixed with falsehood. Therefore, those who teach, if they are wise, always point beyond themselves to that which is higher. This was never done by Jesus. Others pointed down the road to a far destination. Jesus claimed that he was that destination. Others taught that they had aspects of the truth. Jesus said that the truth had come in his person. Others offered to show the way to God. Jesus said that he is the way to God. “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Are these things true? If they are, Jesus is the only truly reliable witness to who God is and to what he requires. Since he requires your life and total allegiance, you ought (as the man who had been born blind) to worship him.
Running Away
At the end of his book, Runaway World, Michael Green, the principal of London Divinity School, deals with the means men and women use to escape an honest investigation of Christ’s claims. Sex is one obvious means of escape, according to Green. So are drugs, mysticism, conformity to our culture, the rat race, vice, even (for some persons) social involvement. Perhaps you are involved in one or more of these pursuits as a means of escape from the claims of Jesus. But what of him? Is he the One he says he is? If he is, none of these means of escape will do. In fact, in order that no one might miss this, John ends his whole presentation of Christ’s claims with a forthright statement of the issues, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (v. 36). What will you say when you meet him? What possible excuse can you offer? Green writes: “ ‘I didn’t believe you ever existed?’ What utter nonsense; what culpable ignorance of the evidence! ‘I didn’t think your life was attractive enough, noble enough’? What manifest hypocrisy: it was rather that the standards of the man of Nazareth were too high, too costly, was it not? Or shall the excuse be simply ‘I did not bother’? How do you think that will look to the Son of God, who became man for you, loved and died for you, rose again in order to take over your life and make a new man of you? No, all excuses will wither and wilt before the truth, the love, the self-sacrifice of Jesus. Final truth about the world, mankind and God has been disclosed by the Other who came into our very midst, the one who declared ‘I am the truth.’ By our relation to him we shall be judged.” It is my profound prayer, as we close our studies of this great third chapter of John’s Gospel, that you will not ignore Christ’s witness but instead will enter into eternal life through believing in and committing yourself to him who died for you and rose again.
Boice, J. M. (2005). The Gospel of John: an expositional commentary (pp. 264–269). Baker Books.
Friends may be unfaithful, but the Lord will not turn away from the gracious soul; on the contrary, He will hear all its desires. The prophet says, “Keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom. A man’s enemies are the men of his own house.” This is a wretched state of affairs; but even in such a case the Best Friend remains true, and we may tell Him all our grief.
Our wisdom is to look unto the Lord and not to quarrel with men or women. If our loving appeals are disregarded by our relatives, let us wait upon the God of our salvation, for He will hear us. He will hear us all the more because of the unkindness and oppression of others, and we shall soon have reason to cry, “Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy!”
Because God is the living God, He can hear; because He is a loving God, He will hear; because He is our covenant God, He has bound Him-self to hear us. If we can each one speak of Him as “My God,” we may with absolute certainty say, “My God will hear me.” Come, then, O bleeding heart, and let thy sorrows tell themselves out to the Lord thy God! I will bow the knee in secret and inwardly whisper, “My God will hear me.”
Published October 15, 2025PHILADELPHIA, Pa. (BP) — Nearly a quarter of U.S. adults think the Bible is “just another book of teachings written by people,” the American Bible Society (ABS) said in its latest release from the 2025 State of the Bible.
More people are skeptical of the Bible’s teachings than those who think the Bible is “totally accurate in all the principles it presents,” ABS said Oct. 14 in releasing the study’s seventh chapter focused on trust.
“A half-century ago, Americans generally trusted the Bible. Attitudes are more complex these days,” John Plake, ABS chief innovation officer and State of the Bible editor-in-chief, said of the findings. “Our latest survey finds a mixture of belief and questioning in the American public.”
Specifically:
— 24 percent think the Bible is just another book of instruction
— 18 percent think the Bible was written to control and manipulate people
— 36 percent agree the Bible is totally accurate
— 39 percent disagree that the Bible is totally accurate
Can low self-esteem actually be a form of pride? Many people base their self-worth on their accomplishments, looks, or money—a definition of self-esteem that the Bible warns can lead to self-worship and pride, bringing God’s opposition (James 4:6, Luke 17:10). But Christians are often told they shouldn’t have low self-esteem either! Learn the critical, biblical difference between damaging prideful self-reliance and the truly healthy self-worth that comes only from your identity in Christ and the high price He paid for you. We break down the true nature of humility and self-obsession and show you what it really means to find your Christian self-worth in God alone (Psalm 16:2, Romans 12:3). In this video, Pastor Nelson answers your question: How should a Christian view self-esteem?
*** Recommended Book:
Uninvited: Living Loved When You Feel Less Than, Left Out, and Lonely Paperback – August 9, 2016
by Lysa TerKeurst https://amzn.to/4iGaFLr
Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (November 5, 1851 February 16, 1921) was the principal of Princeton Seminary from 1887 to 1921. Some conservative Presbyterians consider him to be the last of the great Princeton theologians before the split in 1929 that formed Westminster Seminary and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
Warfield was born near Lexington, Kentucky on November 5, 1851. His parents were William and Mary Cabell (Breckinridge) Warfield, originally from Virginia and quite wealthy. His maternal grandfather was the Presbyterian preacher Robert Jefferson Breckinridge (1800-1871) the son of John Breckinridge a former United States Senator and Attorney General. Warfield’s uncle was John C. Breckinridge, the fourteenth Vice President of the United States and a Confederate general in the American Civil War.
For a short time in 1876 he preached in Presbyterian churches in Concord, Kentucky and Dayton, Ohio as a “supply pastor” — the latter church calling him to be their ordained minister (which he refused). In late 1876 Warfield and his new wife moved to Germany where he studied under Ernst Luthardt and Franz Delitzsch. Then he became an instructor at Western Theological Seminary, which is now called Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.
In 1881 Warfield wrote a joint article with A. A. Hodge on the inspiration of the Bible. It drew attention because of its scholarly and forceful defense of the inerrancy of the Bible. In many of his writings, Warfield attempted to demonstrate that the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy was simply orthodox Christian teaching and not merely a concept invented in the nineteenth century. His passion was to refute the liberal element within Presbyterianism and within Christianity at large.
“If such be the value and use of doctrine the systematic theologian is preeminently a preacher of the gospel; and the end of his work is obviously not merely the logical arrangement of the truths which come under his hand, but the moving of men, through their power, to love God with all their hearts and their neighbors as themselves; to choose their portion with the Savior of their souls; to find and hold Him precious; and to recognize and yield to the sweet influences of the Holy Spirit whom He has sent. . .For this he needs to be suffused at all times with a sense of the unspeakable worth of the revelation which lies before him as the source of his material and with the personal bearings of its separate truths on his own heart and life; he needs to have had and to be having a full, rich and deep religious experience of the great doctrines with which he deals; he needs to be living close to his God to be resting always on the bosom of his Redeemer, to be filled at all times with the manifest influences of the Holy Spirit. The student of systematic theology needs a very sensitive religious nature, a most thoroughly consecrated heart, and an outpouring of the Holy Ghost upon him such as will fill him with that spiritual discernment, without which all native intellect is in vain. He needs to be not merely a student, not merely a thinker, not merely a systematizer, not merely a teacher — he needs to be like the beloved disciple himself in the highest, truest and holiest sense a divine.”
to everyone who believes. For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. But the righteousness based on faith speaks thus, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).” But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. (10:4b–10)
Because Israel was ignorant of God’s holiness and of His provision for salvation through His Son, Jesus Christ, she was also ignorant of the place of faith in God’s plan of salvation. Because they relied on their own works-righteousness, Jews saw no need for faith. As Paul already had pointed out, “Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,” Jesus Christ (Rom. 9:31–32). Consequently, they cut themselves off from Christ and thereby also cut themselves off from the righteousness that He imparts to everyone who believes in Him. To reject Christ is to forfeit the perfect righteousness that only He can provide. Believers receive as a gracious gift from God what they never could have achieved by their own efforts. Everyone who believes in Him, signs, as it were, the new and eternal covenant that Christ sealed with His own blood (see Heb. 12:24; 13:20), thereby making His righteousness our own. To verify the place of faith in God’s eternal plan for man’s redemption, Paul reminds his readers that Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. The Lord also declared through Moses: “You shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them” (Lev. 18:5). In other words, whoever relies on his own obedience to the law is held accountable for everything that the law requires. Quoting again from Deuteronomy, Paul testifies that “as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them’ ” (Gal. 3:10; cf. Deut. 27:26). The righteousness which is based on law demands absolute perfection in every detail of the law. For that reason, James says, “Whoever keeps the whole law, and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all” (James 2:10). In other words, if such were possible, a person who failed in only one point of the law would remain just as lost as a person who failed in every point of the law. Anyone who is not utterly self-deceived realizes the impossibility of never stumbling even in the smallest way. And the foolish person who does presumptuously rely on his own obedience to the law will attain only the imperfect and unacceptable righteousness that his imperfect obedience merits. In God’s sight, such righteousness is wholly unrighteous and can never remove sin or earn divine favor. “That no one is justified by the Law before God is evident” (Gal. 3:11). Because of the countless rabbinical traditions that had been developed over the previous several hundred years, the Jews of Paul’s time had so lowered and replaced with tradition God’s divine standard of righteousness that many Jews actually believed they lived in satisfactory obedience to the law. After Jesus cited several Old Testament commandments, the rich young ruler told Him with doubtless sincerity, “All these things I have kept” (Matt. 19:20). The truths that Paul emphasizes here may be summarized as follows: First, the man who pursues salvation by trying to keep the law will be judged on the basis of that effort. Second, it is impossible to keep all the law. Third, the inevitable failure of works righteousness results in eternal damnation. The idea that even the most ardent Pharisee was unable to keep God’s law and was therefore cursed was unthinkable to Jews. Many Jews believed they were acceptable to God simply because they were Jews, members of His chosen race through physical descent from Abraham. In their thinking, the most reprobate Jew was more pleasing to God than the most upright Gentile. But as Paul makes clear earlier in this epistle, “The Law brings about wrath” (Rom. 4:15). The law both demonstrates and incites man’s natural lawlessness and releases God’s wrath against him. The law justifies no one, redeems no one, provides mercy for no one. By the law, man is left to his own resources, all of which are imperfect, sinful, and powerless to save, which necessitates salvation by faith. Personifying the righteousness based on faith, Paul says that it speaks thus, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)” (cf. Deut. 30:12–14). Calling His people to faithful obedience, God said to Israel, “The Lord your God will prosper you abundantly … if you obey the Lord your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, if you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and soul” (Deut. 30:9–10, emphasis added). In His law, God set the standards for holy living and has always required heart obedience, so that the promises to Israel just mentioned were contingent on her faith, evidenced by seeking the Lord “with all [her] heart and soul.” As Paul pointed out earlier, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:3; cf. Gen. 15:6). The physical father of Israel became the spiritual “father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be reckoned to them” (Rom. 4:11), because “the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith” (Rom. 4:13). Even the commandments in the Old Testament books of the law (the Pentateuch) are not primarily a call to external obedience. They are, above all, a call to heartfelt, adoring faith in the God of mercy and lovingkindness, who desires obedience and who graciously forgives sin. External observance of the law without internal faith in the God who gave the law results in condemnation for sin without mercy, not salvation from it. On the plains of Moab, Moses proclaimed: “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deut. 6:4–5). A short while later he reminded the people:
The Lord did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but because the Lord loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the Lord brought you out by a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments. (7:7–9; see also 9:4–5; 10:15; 14:2; 15:15–16)
The framework of Deuteronomy—and of all the rest of Scripture—is God’s sovereign grace. Salvation and divine blessing have always begun with God’s grace, which is made effective for the sinner when he comes to God in faith. Paul’s point in Romans 10:6–7 is that, even if such things were possible, men could not come to salvation by searching for Christ in heaven, … to bring [Him] down, or by descending into the abyss, the depths of the earth or of the oceans, to raise Him up from the dead. The righteousness of faith does not require some mystical, esoteric, and impossible journey through the universe to find Christ. No matter what form it takes, “righteousness which is based on law” (v. 5) denies Christ’s incarnation and denies His resurrection. Consequently, works-righteousness is also a denial of the gracious salvation Christ has provided by His own blood. As Geoffrey Wilson observes, “The sheer perversity of unbelief is shown by the many who prefer to undertake an impossible odyssey rather than put their trust in an accessible Christ” (Romans: A Digest of Reformed Comment [London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1969], p. 177). Continuing his personification of “the righteousness based on faith” (v. 6), Paul asks, What does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching. In other words, men do not have to ascend or descend to find it, because God’s way of salvation had already been clearly and abundantly revealed. His chosen people had been engulfed in and surrounded by the word of faith that Paul was now preaching. Even under the Old Covenant men could claim God’s grace simply by receiving it in faith. Much of western society today is like the Israel of Paul’s day. Although most unbelievers have a limited and often distorted concept of Christianity, they have a general idea of its claims and have access to Bibles, churches, and Christians—through which they could easily discover the gospel if they honestly desired to. Tragically, however, men still choose works righteousness and “suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:18–20). The way to be saved and to secure the righteousness God requires is the supreme essential. There is great confusion in much of the church today about God’s way of salvation, but it is the same as it was when Paul wrote to Roman believers: If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. Salvation and its attendant righteousness are appropriated by confession and by faith. Following the order of verse 8, which quotes Deuteronomy 30:14, Paul speaks first of confession, which is with the mouth, and then of faith, which is in the heart. In verse 10, however, he mentions them in reverse order, which is the chronological order of redemption. First, with the heart man believes and is granted righteousness; second, with the mouth he confesses and is granted salvation. Paul has been speaking about true and false righteousness. False righteousness is based on the law (Rom. 10:5), which is impossible for man to fulfill. True righteousness, on the other hand, is based on faith in Christ (vv. 6–8), who bestows His own perfect righteousness on those who believe in Him. It is therefore of great significance that in verse 10 Paul equates righteousness and salvation. Only the person who is righteous before God is truly saved. Those two truths represent the positive and the negative sides of God’s redemptive grace. The positive side reflects His own perfect righteousness, which He graciously imputes to and bestows on those who believe in His Son, Jesus Christ. The believer is simultaneously declared righteous (justified) and made righteous (regenerated). It is about that complete divine righteousness that Paul exults to the Philippians: “I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith” (Phil. 3:8–9). The negative side of God’s work in the believer is salvation, divine deliverance from the sin that separates fallen man from holy God. Righteousness has to do with what we become, and salvation has to do with what we escape. The first has to do with the eternal life we receive but do not deserve, the second with the eternal punishment we deserve but do not receive. The first relates to entering into blessedness, the second relates to escaping cursedness. Unfortunately, those two aspects are often out of balance in evangelism and personal witnessing. When deliverance from sin and hell is made paramount, God’s gracious bestowal of His righteousness on believers is left in the shadows. Consequently, unbelievers who have been repeatedly asked by Christians, “Are you saved?” might well give an ear to the gospel if they were asked instead, “Have you been made holy in Christ?” On the other hand, when God’s love and grace are presented to the virtual exclusion of the need for salvation from sin and its judgment, cheapening of the gospel is almost inevitable. Another contrast between the two verses is that, whereas verse 9 is a personal invitation to believe, focusing on the individual (you), verse 10 presents gospel truth concerning man in general. Scripture never approves, much less commends, contentless faith, a “faith in faith” as it is often described. Paul here specifies two truths that must be believed in order to be saved. The first is that Jesus is Lord, the second that God raised Him from the dead. Many people acknowledge that Jesus is both the Son of God and Lord of the universe. But Paul is speaking of the deep, personal, abiding conviction that, without any reservation or qualification, will confess … Jesus as Lord, that is, will confess that Jesus is the believer’s own sovereign, ruling Lord, in whom alone he trusts for salvation and to whom he submits. James teaches that even demons acknowledge truth about God. In a purely factual sense, they are completely orthodox in their theology. “You believe that God is one,” he writes. “You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder” (James 2:19). In other words, demons are monotheists. Satan and his fallen angels are also confirmed creationists, having watched God form the heavens and the earth simply by speaking them into existence. Demons have observed more of God’s work and know more about His nature and power than all human beings combined, apart from the incarnate Christ. And, having originally dwelt there, they know exactly what heaven is like. They also know with great certainty that they are destined for judgment, and, knowing something of what judgment means, they “shudder.” James’s point is that men can hold such demon belief, belief that is theologically correct but that does not include reception of Jesus as Lord. People may be well aware of their sin, be under deep conviction about it, and even have a great emotional sense of guilt from which they long to be delivered. But they do not repent and forsake the sin that causes the guilt, nor do they trust in the Savior who can forgive and remove the sin. Speaking about such people, the writer of Hebrews gives one of the most sobering warnings to be found in Scripture: “For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame” (Heb. 6:4–6). In other words, a person can hold orthodox theology, lead a moral life, acknowledge his sin, desire eternal life, be scrupulously religious, and yet go to hell. Jesus encountered such superficial and spurious “believers” early in His ministry. “When He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, beholding His signs which He was doing. But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men” (John 2:23–24). Those disciples apparently acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah (believing “in His name”), and, unlike the Pharisees (see Matt. 12:24), they believed that His supernatural powers were from God. But they did not submit themselves to Him as their Lord and Savior. That was also the response of the rich young ruler, who appeared willing to do what Jesus told him in order to inherit eternal life—except acknowledge his sin and repent, as well as relinquish the riches which were his first love and then serve Jesus as Lord (see Matt. 19:16–22). Similarly, three other men professed willingness to follow Jesus but put their own preferences above His authority, proving themselves to be false disciples (Luke 9:57–62). The Father repeatedly declared publicly that He had committed authority, power, judgment, and lordship into the hands of His Son, Jesus Christ. At Jesus’ baptism the Father announced from the heavens, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased” (Matt. 3:17). After Jesus manifested His glory at the transfiguration, the Father said to the awestruck Peter, James, and John, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!” (Matt. 17:5). Submitting to Christ’s lordship is such an integral part of salvation that Paul testified, “I make known to you, that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus is accursed’; and no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3). When the Holy Spirit brings faith and salvation to a heart, that heart proclaims the lordship of Christ. “For to this end Christ died and lived again,” Paul says, “that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living” (Rom. 14:9). In Philippians, Paul teaches that God has bestowed on Jesus Christ “the name which is above every name,” a name that requires bowing submission (2:9–11). Obviously, that name is “Lord.” God gave Christ that name, and all men must acknowledge it and bow to it to be saved. Contrary to much teaching today, Scripture never separates Christ’s lordship from His saviorhood. Lord is from kurios, which signifies sovereign power and authority. In the book of Acts, Jesus is twice referred to as Savior but ninety-two times as Lord. In the entire New Testament, He is referred to some ten times as Savior and some seven hundred times as Lord. When the two titles are mentioned together, Lord always precedes Savior. And even if, as some erroneously contend, Lord were simply a synonym for God, the very term God by definition includes the idea of sovereign authority, that is, of lordship. (For a full treatment of this issue, see the author’s book The Gospel According to Jesus [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988].) The second truth that must be believed in order to be saved is that God raised Him [Jesus] from the dead. There are many important truths about Jesus that Christians are to believe. The New Testament makes clear, for example, that Christ became incarnate, that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit to a mother who was a virgin, and that He experienced every kind of temptation while living a sinless life. But the truth of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead was the supreme validation of His ministry. At the beginning of this letter, Paul states that Jesus Christ “was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 1:4). When God raised Him from the dead, the Father was declaring again that the Savior was His beloved Son, with whom He is well pleased. The resurrection of Christ also demonstrated that He was eternally victorious over sin, death, and Satan. It was “for our sake also, to whom it will be reckoned, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead” (Rom. 4:24). Men must believe the resurrection of Christ because it proves that He accomplished their salvation on the cross. To believe that God raised Christ from the dead is to identify ourselves with the One who purchased our redemption on the cross and rose to share His eternal life with those for whom He is Lord and Savior. Had Jesus not been raised, sin and death would have been victorious over fallen mankind, who then would have had no hope of attaining the perfect righteousness that God requires. In Antioch of Pisidia, Paul told the assembled Jews in the synagogue, “We preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘Thou art My Son; today I have begotten Thee’ ” (Acts 13:32–33). Proclaiming the same foundational truth of the gospel, Peter said, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you” (1 Pet. 1:3–4). Apart from Christ’s resurrection, there could be no salvation. Paul warned the church at Corinth that “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:14–17). The resurrection was the Father’s final stamp of approval on His Son and the final feature in the provision of salvation for those who trust in Him. The resurrection divinely certifies that Jesus is the Messiah, the only Savior, the sovereign and sinless Lord, the sacrificial Lamb who paid the price for our redemption, the judge of all men, the conqueror of death, the coming King of kings. Verses 9 and 10 both clearly state that true belief in Christ’s lordship and in His resurrection comes from the heart. The Hebrews considered the heart to be the core of personhood and the residence of the soul, the deepest, innermost part of man—where thought, will, and motive are generated. That is why the ancient writer admonished his fellow Israelites, “Watch over your heart with all diligence, for from it flow the springs of life” (Prov. 4:23). It is with the heart that man believes, and it is therefore with his heart that man determines his eternal destiny. Early in His ministry Jesus spoke the beautiful words, “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Later He declared, “I am the light of the world; he who follows [believes in] Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life” (John 8:12). In both instances the positive and the negative aspects of the gospel are again clearly seen. In 3:16, “eternal life” is the positive and “perish” is the negative. In 8:12, “the light of life” is the positive and walking “in the darkness” is the negative. John’s very purpose for writing the fourth gospel was that “you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31). Belief in Christ brings an entirely different kind and quality of life—a holy life, a righteous life, an eternal life. It is with the mouth that man confesses, Paul says. Homologeō (confess) has the root meaning of speaking the same thing, of being in agreement and accord with someone. The person who confesses Jesus as Lord (v. 9) agrees with God the Father, and that confession mixed with genuine trust brings salvation. Israel misunderstood the place of this saving faith. So do many people today.
MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1991). Romans (Vol. 2, pp. 68–76). Moody Press.
Lordship Salvation
Romans 10:9
If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
In the last study I tried to spell out the content of Christian preaching as it is summarized in Romans 10:9. In particular, I tried to show the full meaning of the words that were the first great Christian confession: “Jesus is Lord.” I pointed out that those three words, simple as they seem, are actually overflowing with meaning, for they affirm: (1) that Jesus is fully divine, (2) that he is the Savior, and (3) that he rules over his people and church. I elaborated that last point by showing that if we are Christians, Jesus must be Lord of our minds, morals, careers, churches, relation to the secular world without, and missionary outreach. But there is a segment of the evangelical church that disagrees with all that. It restricts the confession “Jesus is Lord” to the belief that Jesus is a divine Savior and explicitly eliminates any idea that Jesus must be Lord of our lives for us to be Christians. Even more. It teaches that a person can be a Christian without being a follower of Jesus Christ. It reduces the gospel to the mere fact of Christ’s having died for sinners, requires of sinners only that they acknowledge this by the barest intellectual assent, quite apart from any repentance or turning from sin, and then assures them of their eternal security when they may very well not be born again. This view bends faith beyond recognition and promises a false peace to thousands who have given verbal assent to this reductionist Christianity, but who are not in God’s family. Those who take this position call what I have explained as the gospel in the last study “Lordship salvation,” and they dismiss it as heresy.
An Old Error in New Wineskins
Few theological positions, orthodox or not, are without precedent. And in this case, the view I am talking about is that of the eighteenth-century Scottish eccentric Robert Sandeman, who taught that everyone who is persuaded that Jesus actually died for sin as testified by the apostles is justified, regardless of any change in his or her life. The view is known by his name, Sandemanianism. However, this old error has appeared in new form in our day, largely through the influence of professors at Dallas Theological Seminary. I do not know anything to call it except “the Dallas doctrine.” The contemporary roots of this teaching lie in the works of Lewis Sperry Chafer, one of the founders of that seminary, who believed that Scripture speaks of two classes of Christians: those that are carnal and those that are spiritual. He wrote, “The ‘carnal’ Christian is … characterized by a ‘walk’ that is on the same plane as that of the ‘natural man.’ ” The idea was a novel one when Chafer first expounded it, but it is well known and widely accepted today. It has even been added to and embellished. If a Christian can behave exactly like a natural or unsaved man, then what is it that makes him a Christian? The answer is “simple assent to the fact that Jesus died to be his or her Savior.” Nothing else is necessary—in particular: no repentance, no discipleship, no change of behavior, not even any true perseverance in faith. In fact, to insist on any of these additional things is to propound a false gospel. Chafer did not say all this, of course, but since it is a logical extension of the idea of the carnal Christian, his followers eventually did. One who has done so is Charles Caldwell Ryrie, editor of the popular Ryrie Study Bible. The most extreme proponent of this view is professor Zane C. Hodges, who has defended it in three works titled The Gospel Under Siege, Dead Faith: What Is It?, and Absolutely Free! What has made this a major issue today is that the Dallas view has been challenged by pastor John MacArthur in a book called The Gospel According to Jesus, to which J. I. Packer and myself provided forewords. It is an attempt by a reformed dispensationalist to turn his fellow dispensationalists from their error. I want to show why the Dallas doctrine is mistaken at this important point, just as I tried to show the error of the “signs and wonders” approach to evangelism. But, as with the “signs and wonders” movement, I want to state what can be said in favor of this view first. The chief thing is that Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges, and those who think as they do, want to preserve the purity of the gospel. That is to their credit. In my opinion, they are actually destroying the true gospel by what they teach, but that is not their intention. They are sons of the Reformation in this respect at least: they believe in justification by faith apart from works and want to guard that gospel from anything that might contaminate its purity. The reason they oppose a demand for repentance, discipleship, or a walk that gives evidence of an inward spiritual change is that they regard this demand as adding works to faith, and that, as we all know, is a false gospel. They want none of it. Again, they want to affirm the doctrine of eternal security, since that, too, is a Reformation distinctive. They argue that if salvation depends in any way on repenting of sin, commitment, following Jesus as Lord, or a behavioral change, then assurance is destroyed, because we all sin. In fact, one of the reasons the Dallas doctrine eliminates obedience from the essence of saving faith is to include as Christians professing believers whose lives are filled with sin. “If only committed people are saved people,” writes Charles Ryrie, “then where is there room for carnal Christians?” Where indeed? Clearly there is an error at this point. But seeing the error does not mean that we should miss the rightful concern these men have to uphold and teach the doctrines of grace and eternal security.
Must Jesus Be Lord to Be Savior?
One very lucid statement of the non-lordship position is by Charles Ryrie in the chapter from Balancing the Christian Life to which I have already alluded and from which I quoted. Ryrie asks the question: “Must Christ be Lord to be Savior?” He answers negatively for the following three reasons.
There are many examples of Christians who have not surrendered to Jesus Christ as Lord. Ryrie cites Peter, who rebuked Jesus on one occasion (“Surely not, Lord!” Acts 10:14); Barnabas and Paul, who quarreled over taking John Mark with them on a second missionary journey (Acts 15:39); and the Ephesian Christians, who did not destroy their magic scrolls and charms until sometime after they had believed on Christ (Acts 19:19). In my opinion, the case of the Ephesians proves the exact opposite of what Ryrie thinks it does. It proves that when the Ephesians believed on Christ, the inevitable outcome was the destruction of all rivals to his lordship. But that is not the main point. The main answer to Ryrie’s argument is that he is equating commitment with perfection, which is obviously wrong. Christians sin, but that does not mean that they are not committed to Christ. If they lie down in their sin and do nothing about it, they are indeed uncommitted. They are not Christians. But if they are Christians, the way they show it is by getting up out of the sin—“repenting” is the right word for what they must do—and beginning to follow Christ again. I have said elsewhere in these studies that there is all the difference in the world between falling down on the path and getting up and going on, and not being on the path at all. It is only those who are on the path who are Christians.
“Jesus is Lord” only means “Jesus is God.” Specifically, it does not mean “Jesus is my Master.” In developing this point, Ryrie rightly states, as I did in the last chapter, that “Lord” means “God” in all the important Christological passages. I said that it is the word used to translate the great name for God, Jehovah, in the Greek Old Testament, so that its application to Jesus by the New Testament writers indicates their belief in Christ’s full deity. But Ryrie goes on from that truth to argue wrongly that because “Lord” means “God” it cannot mean anything else. Amazingly, he fails to see that the reason the word Lord, which on the human level does mean “master,” as he admits, is used of God is that God is the supreme Master over all other masters. It is a case similar to our use of the word Sovereign with a capital S. There are many sovereigns, but God can be called the Sovereign because he is sovereign over all others. In his zeal to divest “Lord” of all meanings that do not suit his purpose, Ryrie even says, “If the gospel of the Lord Jesus includes lordship over my life, it might as well also include the necessity of believing he is my Creator, Judge, coming King, Example, Teacher, and so forth …” But, of course, that is exactly what it does include. What is the meaning of “Jesus is divine” if the statement does not mean that Jesus is the Creator, Judge, Example, Teacher, and other obvious functions of divinity? What does the word God mean if it does not include these matters? When you begin to strip away the implications of this word, instead of adding to them and developing them, even the minimum amount you want to affirm becomes meaningless.
To add anything to faith, even commitment, is to turn the gospel of salvation by faith into a gospel of works, which is a false gospel. Ryrie says, “The message of faith only and the message of faith plus commitment of life cannot both be the gospel; therefore, one of them is a false gospel and comes under the curse of perverting the gospel or preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:6–9).” But this argument fudges on the definition of faith. If true faith includes commitment, as the greatest theologians of the church have always claimed it does, then to insist on commitment is not to add anything to faith but only to insist that faith be true faith.6 And that is an important point, because a false faith, an imitation faith, or a dead faith saves no one.
Four Costly Errors
It is evident from my response to Ryrie’s arguments that I believe the Dallas doctrine goes astray in a number of critical areas. But my remarks have only begun to touch on them. There are four areas in which this faulty understanding of the gospel is mistaken.
The meaning of faith. This is the chief error, and I have already touched on it in my response to Ryrie’s views. According to the Bible, a saving faith is a living faith that inevitably leads to right conduct. It involves substantial content, personal heart response, and commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord. According to the Dallas doctrine, faith is mere intellectual assent to the barest truths of the gospel.
The need for repentance. The Dallas school speaks of the need for repentance, but because it does not want to acknowledge the corresponding need for behavioral change it redefines repentance to mean only “a change of mind” concerning who Jesus Christ is, irrespective of any reference to sin. G. Michael Cocoris, a Dallas product, writes, “The Bible requires repentance for salvation, but repentance does not mean to turn from sin, nor a change in one’s conduct. Those are the fruits of repentance. Biblical repentance is a change of mind or attitude concerning either God, Christ, dead works or sin.” That is not what the Bible means by repentance. The Bible’s use of this word always implies a change of life direction, specifically a turning from sin. It is the flip side of faith, its corresponding member. In conversion we turn from sin, which is repentance, on the one hand, and on the other, we turn to Jesus, which is faith.
The demand for discipleship. The Dallas doctrine divorces salvation from discipleship, thus preserving the school’s doctrine of the “carnal Christian.” But Jesus defined salvation as discipleship. That is, he did not call people to mere intellectual assent to who he was but rather to become his disciples. His call was, “Follow me.” Several years ago I wrote a book to explore the meaning of Christ’s call to discipleship, and in it I examined the matter of cost. I found that Jesus always stressed the cost of coming to him. He never said anything to suggest even remotely that a person could come to him as Savior and remain unchanged. That insight changed me. I said in the book that if I had been asked earlier what minimum amount of doctrine a person needed to know in order to become a Christian or what minimum price he would have to pay to follow Jesus, I would probably have replied as many others still do, stressing very little demand. But now I say, “The minimum amount a person must believe to be a Christian is everything, and the minimum amount a person must give is all. You cannot hold back even a fraction of a percentage of yourself. Every sin must be abandoned. Every false thought must be repudiated. You must be the Lord’s entirely.” Students of the Bible can decide for themselves whether this or the minimal demands of the Dallas school come closest to Christ’s definition of what it means to be a Christian.
The place of regeneration. The fourth costly error of the Dallas doctrine is its failure to see the unbreakable link between justification and regeneration. The exponents of the Dallas view speak as if the only thing involved in the salvation of a sinner is justification. But Jesus also said, “You must be born again” (John 3:7). Clearly, there can be no justification without regeneration, just as there is no regeneration without justification. But regeneration means the creation of a new nature by God. Therefore, if one is justified, he is also regenerated; and if he is regenerated, he will have a new nature and will begin to act differently. Indeed, the first evidences of this new nature are the person’s turning from sin in repentance and turning to Jesus Christ as Savior in faith. That is why we say that if there is no evidence of the new life, there is no new life. And if there is no new life, the person is not a true Christian regardless of his or her profession.
Even Worse Errors Than These
I have been speaking of the errors that have been linked to the Dallas doctrine, but at this point I need to say something more. Sometimes an error is not very serious, because it does not touch on matters of great importance. Sometimes an error is serious, but the implications are not worked out and so it does little damage. This is not the case here. As the Dallas school has been challenged in this area, the opponents of “Lordship salvation” have dug in their heels and (in the person of Zane Hodges at least) have affirmed in their defense that: (1) a person can be saved and eternally secure even though he or she has a dying (or dead) faith, and (2) the person can be saved even if he or she apostatizes, denying Jesus. The first of these terrible and nearly unbelievable assertions comes as a result of Zane Hodges’s attempt to deal with James 2:14–16, which distinguishes between a saving faith and a dead one. In Hodges’s handling of this text, the passage is said to have nothing to do with spiritual salvation in the life to come but only with how one can preserve one’s life now, here on earth. According to Hodges, without works faith will wither. In fact, it can even die. “A body dies when it loses the spirit which keeps it alive. In the same way, a person’s faith dies when it loses the animating factor of good works.” Does that mean that salvation can be lost, then? That we must abandon the doctrine of eternal security? Not at all, according to this writer. The very fact that faith can die means that it was alive once, and on the basis of that once-alive faith we can confidently say, “Once saved, always saved.” Writes Hodges, “The dangers of a dying faith are real. But they do not include hell.”10 That is terrible teaching. But here is a second terrible assertion, based on Hodges’s handling of Hebrews 6:4–6. Hodges says that this is a description of real apostasy experienced by real Christians. That is, it is possible for Christians to “fall away.” But we do not need to worry, since “we should not construe … ‘falling away’ here as though it meant the loss of eternal life.” The bottom line of this pernicious exegesis is that a person can profess to believe in Christ early in life, live without works and thus see his or her faith wither, and at last die, so that the person no longer professes even the meager intellectual assent possessed at the beginning, and then can even deny Jesus as the divine Savior—that is, be utterly indistinguishable from a pagan, not only in external appearance but in internal conviction as well—and still be a Christian, that is, be saved eternally. It is inconceivable to me how anyone can seriously regard that as the Bible’s teaching. Yet it is where the Dallas doctrine leads, even though not all who oppose “Lordship salvation” follow it to Hodges’s incredible extremes. That this is the end of the line should be ample warning to anyone that the teaching is unstable at the core.
Historic Christianity
At the end of his critique of these errors in The Gospel According to Jesus, John MacArthur has a substantial appendix in which he shows by many quotations from the preachers and theologians of the past that “Lordship salvation” has always been the teaching of the church. In that section he cites thirty-one writers and offers forty-one quotations. I cannot reproduce them all here, of course. But here is an important one, a series of comments by W. H. Griffith Thomas, one of the founders of Dallas Seminary before its present doctrinal decline. He wrote, “Our relation to Christ is based on his death and resurrection, and this means his Lordship. Indeed, the Lordship of Christ over the lives of his people was the very purpose for which he died and rose again.… We have to acknowledge Christ as our Lord. Sin is rebellion, and it is only as we surrender to him as Lord that we receive pardon from him as our Savior.” Here is another. A. W. Tozer wrote:
[Years ago] no one would ever dare to rise in a meeting and say, “I am a Christian” if he had not surrendered his whole being to God and had taken Jesus Christ as his Lord as well as his Savior and had brought himself under obedience to the will of the Lord. It was only then that he could say, “I am saved.” Today we let them say they are saved no matter how imperfect and incomplete the transaction, with the proviso that the deeper Christian life can be tacked on at some time in the future. Can it be that we really think that we do not owe Jesus Christ our obedience? This is bad teaching brethren.
Indeed it is! But unfortunately, it is all too common in our time.
Boice, J. M. (1991–). Romans: God and History (Vol. 3, pp. 1197–1204). Baker Book House.
“Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust must be men of unexceptionable characters.” —Samuel Adams (1775)
Schumer Shutdown update: Democrats oppose paying troops: Yesterday, Senate Democrats voted against the annual defense appropriations bill, despite it passing out of committee with bipartisan support earlier this year. Senators voted 50-44 on the measure, which needed 60 to advance. The bill includes $193 billion in pay and benefits for service members, as well as a 3.8% pay raise. It would also provide $171 billion for the procurement of weapons systems and $141 billion for research. Majority Leader John Thune hoped to make some progress, despite the government shutdown, by bringing the bill up for a vote. The Democrats’ reason for opposition? Minority Leader Chuck Schumer explained, “It’s always been unacceptable to Democrats to do the defense bill without other bills that have so many things that are important to the American people in terms of healthcare, in terms of housing, in terms of safety.” Seems pretty petty.
Jeffries’s leadership teeters: Hakeem Jeffries’s stint as House Democrat leader may be a short one. He entered the role in 2022 with unanimous support, but that support is clearly eroding as Democrats, particularly those on the far Left, are increasingly dissatisfied. In a survey of every competitive Democrat, 20 stated they would not vote for Jeffries as speaker or minority leader, with five others saying they likely would vote against him. An additional 57 Democrats refused to commit to supporting Jeffries, saying it was premature. Just 24 said they would definitely vote for Jeffries, with seven others indicating they probably would. That’s hardly a vote of confidence for Jeffries heading into a midterm election cycle that favors the Democrats. But is Jeffries the real problem, or is it his party’s increasingly far-left base?
ICE arrests illegal alien Chicago cop: In JB Pritzker’s Illinois, an illegal alien from Montenegro was arrested by immigration authorities, the Department of Homeland Security announced Thursday. Radule Bojovic was a sworn police officer with the Hanover Park Police Department before his arrest. Federal authorities said Bojovic was in the U.S. on a tourist visa that required him to depart by March 31, 2015. Over a decade later, he was still illegally in the U.S. and hired in January as a police officer. The Village of Hanover blamed the federal government: “The bottom line is that all information we received from the federal government indicated that Officer Bojovic is legally authorized to work in the United States as a police officer. Clearly, without that authorization, the Village would not have hired him.” Bojovic has been placed on administrative leave pending an investigation.
DOJ hits Antifa with first terrorism charges: Two members of the recently designated domestic terrorist group Antifa have become the first individuals indicted on terrorism charges associated with the group. These two Antifa members were involved in an attack against ICE agents outside a detention center in Alvarado, Texas, on July 4. ICE agents were fired upon after they were lured out of the facility by a number of mask-wearing, black-clad Antifa thugs. When police responded to the scene, one of the indicted Antifa members yelled, “Get to the rifles!” The indictment says that “seconds later,” he “opened fire on the officers, striking the Alvarado officer in the neck area as the unarmed correctional officers ducked and ran for cover.”
Fireworks at Virginia’s AG debate: Virginia’s race for attorney general has been in the spotlight due to Democrat candidate Jay Jones’s horrific texts calling for murder. In last night’s debate between Jones and the incumbent, Republican Jason S. Miyares, Jones did damage control, using about 40 seconds of his four-minute opening statement to apologize. He constantly tried to change the subject and pivot to Donald Trump by promising to fight the president’s policies in court and using Trump’s name 37 times during the 60-minute debate. Miyares argued that Jones is disqualified from office due to the texts. Miyares hit the nail on the head: “We have seen a window to who Jay Jones is and what he thinks of people that disagree with him. … Character is what you do in the dark when no one is watching. But now we know what he was doing in the dark.”
NY mayor debate: Yesterday, the three remaining New York City mayoral candidates had the first of two remaining debates. While the debate stage included Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa, it is clear that the race at this point is between former governor and independent candidate Andrew Cuomo and socialist Democrat candidate Zohran Mamdani. The two focused their attacks on each other. Cuomo hit the youthful Mamdani over his lack of experience, his past anti-law enforcement comments, and his refusal to condemn the jihadi phrase “globalize the intifada.” Mamdani jabbed Cuomo over his COVID pandemic policies and a current DOJ investigation regarding his testimony last year before Congress. When it came to questions regarding the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, Mamdani falsely accused Israel of carrying out a genocide, though he refused to say whether Hamas should give up its weapons. Cuomo noted that Mamdani refused to “denounce Hamas.”
Chamber of Commerce sues Trump admin over H-1B visa fee: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit on Thursday alleging that a $100,000 fee for new visas for highly skilled foreign workers is unlawful. The Chamber argues that the fee would cause “significant harm” to American companies via much higher prices for labor. The fee applies only to new H-1B visa petitions, not to existing ones. White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said, “President Trump promised to put American workers first, and his commonsense action on H1-B visas does just that by discouraging companies from spamming the system and driving down American wages, while providing certainty to employers who need to bring the best talent from overseas.” According to the lawsuit, the Chamber believes Trump has exceeded his authority and “blatantly contravenes the fees Congress has set” for the program.
Trump’s tariffs brought in $118B: The 2025 fiscal year ended with the federal government hitting another spending record of $7 trillion, an increase of $275 billion over last year, adding $1.775 trillion to the national debt. However, the addition to the deficit was less than last year thanks to a $317 billion increase in government revenue, which reached a new record of $5.235 trillion. The primary driver was a $118 billion increase from Donald Trump’s tariffs, which slightly mitigates the growth in government spending. The $1.2 trillion in interest payments on the national debt accounts for more than every other federal program except for Social Security. The overall deficit spending didn’t increase, but as Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, observed, “We are on track to borrow nearly $2 trillion a year for the next decade. How can anyone think this is sustainable?”
Headlines
Trump says he will meet with Putin in Budapest to discuss end to Ukraine War (WSJ)
U.S. military drone strike on drug vessel in Caribbean leaves survivors (Fox News)
Penn, USC, Brown reject Trump’s reform deal (College Fix)
Gavin Newsom vetoes five bills for “reparative justice” for black Californians (Sacramento Bee)
What’s happening to Kimmel’s ratings as he stays political (Daily Signal)
Humor: Here’s how 12 different news outlets covered Trump’s Gaza peace deal (Babylon Bee)
You know, given the Leftmedia exposure of a military mission text thread six months ago featuring SecWar Pete Hegseth — an infringement that would have resulted in a UCMJ court-martial for anyone serving in uniform under him — one would think people would learn that stupid texts in political threads will catch up to you.
Like all those Demos who think there is no perpetual record of everything they have said in the past that directly contradicts what they say now, particularly regarding their objection/support for illegal immigration, words stick with them like skunk stink for the rest of their careers.
No doubt you have heard about the murderous musings of Virginia’s leftist attorney general candidate Jerrauld Charles Corey “Jay” Jones. In 2022, he promoted the murder of then-Republican House Speaker Todd Gilbert in a text message — accidentally sent to the wrong person. In that message, Jones even asserted it would be good if Gilbert’s wife could watch her children get shot and die in her arms.
After those messages were exposed two weeks ago, “Two Bullets” Jones brushed it off, saying, “Like all people, I’ve sent text messages that I regret.” He then attempted to deflect attention from his violent messages by suggesting that publicizing them was a political smear. Well, yeah, a self-inflicted smear.
And NOBODY in Demo leadership in Virginia or nationwide has called for Jones to withdraw.
There is one lone Democrat who has consistently been critical of hateful Demo rhetoric about Trump and his supporters — Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA). On the leftist assertions that Trump and his MAGA base are fascists and NAZIs, Fetterman declared: “We have to turn the temperature down. It’s like we can’t compare people to these kinds of figures in history. [Trump] is not an autocrat. [He] is a product of a democratic election.”
Much to the objection of congressional leftists, Fetterman doubled down this week: “I knew and I loved people that voted for President Trump. But they are not fascists. They’re not Nazis. They’re not trying to destroy the Constitution. … I refuse to call people Nazis or fascists. I would never compare anybody — anybody to Hitler. If that kind of extreme rhetoric is going to continue, [it is] likely to result in extreme kinds of outcomes and political violence.”
Ahead of the upcoming Virginia election on 4 November, with the Jones murder texts trending in the news cycle, Politico broke a story about a group of New York Young Republicans (YR) making offensive jokes in a “private” group chat. Out of 2,900 pages of chat material, involving around a dozen people over eight months, Politico found 251 offensive messages.
Of course, many of the messages were deemed offensive because they did not comport with the Left’s deviant gender confusion cult orthodoxy, which I wrote about earlier this week.
The Young Republican National Federation leadership immediately denounced the chat messages and called for the resignations of those involved: “We are appalled by the vile and inexcusable language revealed in the Politico article published today. Such behavior is disgraceful, unbecoming of any Republican, and stands in direct opposition to the values our movement represents.”
JD Vanceresponded to the YR group messages, saying: “The reality is that kids do stupid things, especially young boys, they tell edgy, offensive jokes. … I really don’t want us to grow up in a country where where a kid telling a stupid joke — telling a very offensive, stupid joke is cause to ruin their lives.”
Conservative commentator Matt Walsh observed: “If you actually read that Politico hit piece [about the YR messages] you’ll see that many of the messages are being taken wildly out of context. For example, the guy who said ‘I love Hitler’ was clearly being sarcastic. It’s explicitly meant to be a sarcastic joke. And yet Politico put that quote in the headline of the article and conservatives are lining up to offer denunciations. How in the hell is anyone on the Right still falling for this trick? How have you not learned by now to take absolutely nothing from the leftist media at face value, ESPECIALLY if it’s a blatant political hit piece?”
For the record, some involved in the YR text thread were in their 20s, indicative that too many young adults are mired in adolescence.
That perpetual adolescence is loudly demonstrated every day by countless hordes of leftist protesters of all ages nationwide, including those planning to disrupt your weekend with their so-called “No Kings” demonstrations. To be clear, “No Kings” is a leftist euphemism to assert that Trump is a fascist Nazi, and by extension, so are his MAGA base supporters.
Let me reiterate: No Demos have called for “Two Bullets” Jones to resign. Consequently, Republicans clearly own the high ground against promoting political violence.
Finally, National Review’s Charles Cook responded to the YR brouhaha with a primer on “How Not to Be Caught Saying Hideous Things.” Spoiler alert: Don’t say hideous things.
Douglas Andrews: ‘No Kings!’ They Shrieked — Once again, a sad-sack bunch of adolescent leftists will take to the streets to deny reality and rail against an imaginary “authoritarian.”
Nate Jackson: Bolton: Mishandling Classified Info ‘Sets a Bad Example’ — For better or worse, Trump has decided that Democrats have opened Pandora’s box, and he is not going to be the only man in Washington ever to be indicted for stuff.
Brian Mark Weber: Who Is JB Pritzker? — The Illinois governor obviously has aspirations to win the Democrat presidential nomination in 2028, but his record and story are worthy of scrutiny.
Thomas Gallatin: Why Health Insurance Premiums Are Jumping — New pricey drugs and tariffs are contributing to the biggest increase in health insurance premiums in over a decade — since just after ObamaCare “fixed” the system.
Mark Alexander: Profiles of Valor: COL Joe Marm (USA) — “The leader of the stranded platoon was killed, and his whole chain of command were killed or wounded.”
Ron Helle: Victorious — Victorious living comes by our faith and trust in our Lord Jesus Christ. Where the rubber meets the road is making victory the practical experience in our everyday lives.
American Spirit: Charlie Kirk Ceremony: Erika’s Speech — Charlie’s widow, Erika, delivered moving remarks during this week’s posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom award for the martyred conservative Christian stalwart.
Why Leftist ‘Justice’ Fails the Victim — The rise of “restorative justice” in the courts has impacted criminal activity for decades now. It negatively affects victims, enhances recidivism, and erodes trust in the Rule of Law.
Stephen A. Smith Walks Out of NewsNation Town Hall — In a charged atmosphere thick with bipartisan tension, Smith delivered a memorable — and abrupt — performance at NewsNation’s latest town hall event.
People Are Starting to Wake Up — Democrats are not incentivizing black Americans to do better. The ongoing cycle of struggle among black Americans benefits their political power.
Is Trans Ideology Dead? — A viral post on X asserted that trans ideology is dead based on the stats. But 20 million impressions later, and it seems like it was all a sham.
Barack Obama: Transforming America — Obama promised to fundamentally transform America. He did just that. Carol Swain examines the impact of the 44th president and the legacy he left behind.
SHORT CUTS
The BIG Lies
“The only reason that [House Speaker Mike Johnson] has shut down Congress is because he does not want a vote on the Epstein files.” —Rep. Ro Khanna
“There’s no chaos in Portland. None. There is no chaos in Chicago. There was no chaos in Los Angeles. They’re pretending there’s chaos as a pretense for a military takeover.” —Jimmy Kimmel
Fearmongering
“The broader goal, I believe, is the militarization of major American cities before the 2026 elections. … Next year, I fear that what they’re going to do is deploy these folks eventually to polling places and say they’re protecting the vote. … If [Trump] loses, he’s going to immediately, in the aftermath of the election, do what he said he might do in 2020, which is use the military to confiscate the ballot boxes and count the votes, claiming that there’s fraud.” —Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker
Dumb & Dumber
“I don’t really have opinions about the future of Hamas.” —New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani
“One of the key reasons why we have to make buses free is because it reduces the assaults on bus drivers. It creates a safer work environment.” —Zohran Mamdani
“[JD Vance] is married to a woman of Indian descent. He has mixed-race children. So to all of the MAGA voters out there, if this man will not defend his wife and will not defend his kids, do you think he gives a crap about you?” —podcast host Jennifer Welch
“I’m a white woman that has lived in a red state my entire life, and I can tell you when I’m around white people, they test the racist water. They test it on people … all the time.” —Jennifer Welch
Missing the Forest for the Trees
“Why is the United States, the richest country in the history in the world, the only major nation not to guarantee healthcare to all people as a human right?” —Sen. Bernie Sanders (Maybe we’re rich because we’re not socialist.)
Gaslighting
“President Trump was an obstacle to peace previously.” —Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Trump’s historic Gaza ceasefire deal
Defending the Indefensible
“The Jay Jones texts were abhorrent and they are indefensible, but I also have known Jay Jones for 25 years.” —Sen. Tim Kaine
Credit Where It’s Due
“There are no Democratic officials in Virginia who have called for [Jay] Jones to drop out of the race.” —CNN’s Jake Tapper
“Shutting the government is really what the Democratic Party wants to do, and I follow country, then Party, and it’s the wrong thing for the country in a period of chaos. I refuse to vote to shut our government down. … I would remind everybody, too: [The COVID-era ObamaCare subsidy] was designed by the Democratic Party to expire at the end of the year.” —Sen. John Fetterman
“I know and I love people that voted for President Trump. But they are not fascists. They’re not Nazis. They’re not trying to destroy the Constitution.” —Sen. John Fetterman
For the Record
“Chuck Schumer was quick to throw around words like ‘sickening’ and ‘vile’ about the Republican operatives but hasn’t mustered a single syllable about Jones’s violent rhetoric. Just silence.” —Matt Margolis
“In 1940, 87% of blacks lived below the poverty line. In 2023 it was less than 18%, and the poverty rate for black married couples was 6.5%. This suggests that black impoverishment has more to do with family formation than with racism.” —Jason Riley
“Ignore the hyperventilating establishment media. If the Supreme Court strikes down Section 2 [of the Voting Rights Act], no one’s right to vote will be taken away or restricted in any way. They would be striking down the race-based predetermined outcome of a vote that clearly violates the Constitution.” —Gary Bauer
Observations
“When it comes to Trump, detractors look at his swing: the insults, the bragging, the swagger, the ego, his tweets, his cockiness, his demeanor, his flippancy and his various opinions on all manner of things that really don’t much matter. … Supporters look where the ball lands: the economy; borders; eliminating DEI; SCOTUS judges; pro-life; foreign policy; school choice; combating urban crime; focused deportations; opposing biological men competing against biological women in sports, etc.” —Larry Elder
“The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore, we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.” —Thomas Sowell
And Last…
“The people of Chicago are walking around with MAGA hats. You have women, beautiful black women, walking around with MAGA hats.” —Donald Trump (“Jussie Smollett was ahead of his time.” —Michael Knowles)
ON THIS DAY in 1916, the USS Arizona was commissioned at the New York Naval Shipyard. She operated in both the Atlantic and Pacific for 25 years before being sunk by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. Some 1,177 crewmen were killed aboard during the attack, and about 1,000 sailors remain entombed there today. The price of Liberty can sometimes be high.
Please join us in prayer for our nation — that righteous leaders would rise and prevail and we would be united as Americans. Pray for the protection of our uniformed Military Patriots, Veterans, First Responders, and their families. Lift up your Patriot Post team and our mission to support and defend our legacy of American Liberty and our Republic’s Founding Principles, in order that the fires of freedom would be ignited in the hearts and minds of our countrymen.
President Trump again warns Hamas that if they continue to kill people, “we will have no choice but to go in and kill them,” although he says US troops won’t be involved; Israel accuses of Hamas of violating the ceasefire deal, since it still hasn’t returned the remains of most of the dead hostages; Lebanon’s President calls for direct negotiations with Israel, saying it’s time to end the conflict between the two countries; Chris Mitchell talks about the possibility Israel may go to war against Hamas again as the terrorist group refuses to disarm, the reaction in Gaza to Hamas public executions, how Israel could put pressure on Hamas to return the rest of the hostage remains, the importance of Israel taking out another Houthi rebel military chief of staff, and possibility of restored relations between Israel and Lebanon (where Hezbollah is based); Trump keeping up his efforts to end the war in Ukraine with a meeting today with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and a phone conversation and upcoming meeting with Russian President Putin; our CBN News discussions with the legislators behind the move for a Day of the Bible; and our look at the new movie “Grow,” about a young girl growing closer to her aunt as the work together to try to grow a giant pumpkin.
Former Vice President Mike Pence was chosen by then-candidate Trump during the 2016 primaries. He came across as a quiet and mild-mannered Christian man from the Midwest who loved his country. What we didn’t know back then was what lay beneath that facade.
We learned while President Trump was speaking in front of a million followers near the Washington monument that Pence chose to destroy his name for the ages.
In post on X/Twitter today General Flynn share a record that Pence’s office had a back channel with corrupt Peter Strzok’s team.
Sadly, it appears a former VP of the USA @Mike_Pence was as bad as they say he was.
It’s heartbreaking how corrupt our nation has become. It’s a combination of communism creeping into our government, seriously compromised politicians wasting taxpayers hard earned money, and a bloated bureaucracy that needs radical reform and reduction.
Say a prayer that @realDonaldTrump is the leader that can fix these severe problems. I do everyday.
Sadly, it appears a former VP of the USA @Mike_Pence was as bad as they say he was.
It’s heartbreaking how corrupt our nation has become. It’s a combination of communism creeping into our government, seriously compromised politicians wasting taxpayers hard earned money, and a… https://t.co/5TPrGd1oy2
Flynn already pointed out that Pence was behing the P***y tape in 2016 alongside Paul Ryan. Pence was happy to step in and take over the Presidency at any time. What a piece of work.
🚨General Mike Flynn exposes how Mike Pence and Paul Ryan were heavily involved in a cabal to take down President Trump from inside the Republican party: ⁰ "Mike Pence and Paul Ryan wanted Trump out. They had a plan for when Trump steps down, they would step in." pic.twitter.com/SK3jMxeOuA
After 10 years and nearly $1 billion in total project costs, the Barack Obama Presidential Center is finally nearing completion and has been opened for limited public tours. The facility is set to officially go into operation in the spring of 2026, however, at least $230 million in construction costs still remain and the Obama Foundation simply doesn’t have it. Total reserve funds are $116 million and this does not take into account the cost of paying staff to maintain the center.
Not only is the future of the site in limbo, the building is also being called “the tomb” by many locals in the South Side of Chicago where it is located. Though the media frequently refers to the design as “warm and inviting”, it looks more like a concrete bunker nightmare that one might find in Soviet era Russia.
The center’s notably harsh aesthetics are oddly similar to many pieces of architecture constructed in Russia during the height of communism using methods that seem to suck the life out of the surrounding environment. One cannot help but notice the dystopian similarities. Some might ague that buildings can’t really be “political”, but these are people that don’t understand architecture.
Residents in the area reportedly describe the building as a “totalitarian command center dropped straight out of 1984.” Obama’s adoring fans, though, say that the building is a beautiful symbol and tribute to the accomplishments of the Black American community. They also claim that the center will be an “economic catalyst” for the neighborhood, which is suffering from fiscal decline.
Ironically, the site may indeed revamp the area, but in the process it is driving up property costs to the point that homes are unaffordable for current lower income residents.
Alderwoman Jeanette Taylor of Ward 20, which is near where the center is being built, told the Daily Mail last month she has fought against some aspects of the building out of concern for her constituents. Families will be displaced because of higher rents, the tabloid quoted her as saying.
“Every time large development comes to communities, they displace the very people they say they want to improve it for,” Taylor said. Homes worth $400,000, which the lawmaker argues are unaffordable for South Side denizens, are popping up around the area. Rents are also climbing, with some living in the South Side reporting that two bedroom apartments jumped from $800 per month to over $1800 per month.
In May of this year, President Donald Trump criticized the project as a “disaster” that has come in many millions over budget. Trump also warned about the DEI methods used to recruit construction contractors.
Obama did proudly proclaim that his library would be built with DEI initiatives and diverse contractors in mind (mostly black contractors). Now his foundation is running out of funds. Costs have ballooned due to terrible planning as well as lawsuits over “racial discrimination”. Black companies argue that they have been subjected to unfair scrutiny in their building methods, while the New York engineering firm in charge of the library argues that the builders exhibit low experience and poor performance.
Mary welcomes back Gary Kah to get his insights on several different topics today. The government shutdown – who is doing what to whom to get what they want? According to Americans, who gets the most blame? Who is the new target of losing their jobs as Trump takes aim at Dem programs? Since everything is politicized now, so must this be. We attempt to shine a light on that and what it means for us mere voters. Then we discuss the blue state desire to keep immigration flowing one direction. We have to ask ourselves, why in the world would any community want illegals and the loathsome crimes they commit to ravage their towns and neighborhoods? There must be something big in it for them. Until it’s their family or friend touched by crime. We also get Gary’s take on the Mideast, the hot topic of the week; also on Ukraine and Russia, as no one expected this war to drag so long. Gary has been watching the times since the early 90s and brings an articulate, unique perspective to some hot button issues.
FIRST ON FOX: George Soros’ foundation is funding the “No Kings” protests that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and tens of thousands of protesters will be participating in on Saturday.
Soros, a billionaire investor and notorious Democratic Party donor, is founder of the Open Society Foundation.
In 2023, the foundation, through the Open Society Action Fund, issued a two-year grant of $3 million to the Indivisible organization. The grant was “to support the grantee’s social welfare activities,” according to the Open Society Foundation’s website.
Indivisible is “managing data and communications with participants” for the “No Kings” protests that will be taking place in Washington and across the country.
Per the Open Society Foundation’s website, Soros “has given away more than $32 billion of his personal fortune” to the foundation. His son Alex serves as chairman of the board.
According to the Indivisible organization’s website, Ezra Levin is the executive co-director behind the group. Leah Greenberg, Levin’s wife, serves as the other executive co-director.
Greenberg formerly served as the policy director for the Tom Perriello for Governor of Virginia campaign. Perriello was the executive director for the Open Society Foundation from October 2018 to July 2023, furthering the ties between Soros and the Indivisible organization.
In 2017, Indivisible received a $350,000 grant from Tides Advocacy, a group affiliated with the Tides Network. The Tides Foundation, a foundation also affiliated with the Tides Network, has been accused of funding anti-Israel campus riots.
The grant report for 2024 was not available on the IRS nor the Open Society Foundation websites, though Soros’ foundation has awarded grants to Indivisible every year since the organization’s conception in 2017. In total, the Open Society Foundation has awarded $7.61 million in grants to the group behind the “No Kings” protest.
Fox News Digital reached out to Perriello, the Indivisible group, the Open Society Foundation and the Tides Network but did not receive responses in time for publication.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, was the first to sound the alarm on ties between Soros and the “No Kings” protest during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Thursday, saying “There’s considerable evidence that George Soros and his network are behind funding these rallies, which may well be riots all across the country.”
Cruz introduced the Financial Underwriting of Nefarious Demonstrations and Extremist Riots (STOP FUNDERs) Act in July that would allow for the Department of Justice to impose Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) charges against individuals behind the funding of “violent” and “extreme” protests.
“This politicized march is being organized by Soros operatives and funded by Soros money. No one denies these basic facts,” Cruz told Fox News Digital. “The Trump administration and the Republican Congress are committed to countering this network of left-wing violence.”
Per the Indivisible website, “On October 18, millions of us are rising again” to protest in an effort to paint President Donald Trump as a tyrant and an authoritarian king.
Schumer announced on Thursday that he would be attending the protest, saying he “will join the marchers, to celebrate what makes this country so great” and encouraged peaceful demonstrations.
In addition to funding from Soros, the Communist Workers of America Union is also partnered with the “No Kings” protest.
“Protests can be strenuous and intense,” the “How to Prepare for a Protest” section of the Indivisible website reads.
“They are most effective when we peacefully use our constitutionally protected rights of assembly and speech and properly prepare ahead of time,” the website continued.
Everyone knows the Church of England wandered off the straight and narrow years ago: blessing same-sex marriages, pushing DEI, even hosting Islamic services in its cathedrals, so no one was really all that surprised when they appointed Sarah Mullaly as the first female Archbishop of Canterbury.
•
NEWS: A shocking new account from a freed Israeli hostage reveals Hamas has radicalized everyday civilians — teachers, doctors, even university lecturers — turning them into captors and killers.
•
•
FOCUS STORY: Forrest Frank fires back at criticism over his awards show decision — and Jelly Roll’s public comments spark debate within the Christian music community.
•
•
MAIN THING: A new survey shows the number of college students identifying as transgender or nonbinary has nearly been cut in half. Raj Nair and Billy Hallowell break down what’s driving the shift.
•
•
LAST THING: Galatians 2:20 — “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.”
Truth2Freedom's Blog 